Friday, November 18, 2011

Feds throw wrench into seine permit buyback plan

Deckboss trusts you recall our recent posting of the proposed plan for a buyback of salmon seine permits in Southeast Alaska. The plan listed the names of seiners who had submitted acceptable bids in a reverse auction, and the bid amounts.

Well, now the National Marine Fisheries Service has rejected the plan, saying the auction was premature. Here's the letter from NMFS.

Woot! Woot! This fellow bbt sounds inebriated. Just a passer-by, but reading this fellows posts (over time) reminds me of the musings of a Jim-Crow southerner a'ways back. All so full full of his fulsomeness.

"Please note that among other things, the contents of the plan should include rational that demonstrates that the plan would permanently reduce the most capacity at the least cost."

Southeast Alaska Seiners Association Executive Director Bob Thorstenson Jr. said he too was cited for what he considered an obscure state violation, and said this decision is a good one, but he disagreed with Kookesh...

The commission shall adopt regulations providing for the purchase of transferable entry permits with money in the buy-back fund for each fishery. The commission shall cease purchases of entry permits in a fishery when the number of entry permits in the fishery has been reduced to the optimum number. The commission shall terminate a buy-back assessment established for a fishery under AS 16.43.310 (b) when the commission determines that the amount of revenue collected through the assessment is sufficient to purchase the number of entry permits necessary to achieve the optimum number of entry permits in the fishery and to offset the reasonable costs of the buy-back program for the fishery, including repayment of any debt the commission was authorized to incur to capitalize the buy-back fund for the fishery. The unexpended balance of appropriations made to a buy-back fund for a fishery shall lapse back into the fund from which the money was appropriated at the end of the fiscal year in which the buy-back program is terminated.

The only thing this buyback would do is reduce the number of permits, active and inactive permits, subsequntly causing alternate inactive permits to become active once again. This does NOT remove NET effort.

Thats why you are required to have an optimum number economic study, and

(c) The Alaska Rules of Evidence apply to investigations, hearings, and proceedings before the commission, except when the commission determines that their application is not required in order to assure fair treatment of all parties and that the evidence is relevant and of the sort on which responsible persons are accustomed to rely in the conduct of serious matters.

Actually.when you fuck yourself, with those illegal cfec transfers under the direction of the Governor, the Fish and Game Commissioner, Attorney General, and CFEC Commissioners, with your best friends, best friend Bedford, it all becomes very very clear who's running Juneau.

``What the changes in the treaty do is institutionalize some relatively deep sacrifices that seiners have made over the course of the treaty,'' said David Bedford of Juneau, director of the Southeast Alaska Seiners Association. The seiners association represents 300 fishermen.

Trying to get that F/V Investor,money back, eh bobbyt?Sec. 16.43.150. Terms and conditions of entry permit; annual renewal.(e) An entry permit constitutes a use privilege that may be modified or revoked by the legislature without compensation.

who's on acid?

Sometime during the night of Sept. 6, 1982, the F/V Investor, a 58-foot purse seiner docked in the remote fishing village of Craig, Alaska

The black helicopter, from the Limited Entry Act of 1819? Is that how Webster's Whig got blown off too?

"We admit, as all must admit, that the powers of the government are limited, and that its limits are not to be transcended. But we think the sound construction of the constitution must allow to the national legislature that discretion, with respect to the means by which the powers it confers are to be carried into execution, which will enable that body to perform the high duties assigned to it, in the manner most beneficial to the people. Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the constitution, are constitutional. . . ."

"All obstructions to the execution of the Laws, all combinations and Associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, controul counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the Constituted authorities are distructive of this fundamental principle and of fatal tendency. They serve to Organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force--to put in the place of the delegated will of the Nation, the will of a party; often a small but artful and enterprizing minority of the Community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public Administration the Mirror of the ill concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the Organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common councils and modefied by mutual interests. However combinations or Associations of the above description may now & then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the Power of the People, & to usurp for themselves the reins of Government; destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion."

Don't get so "f yourself" mad bobbyt, I can't keep up with all of it myself, don't have enough time to read all the links, but just hang in there. Eventually if you studied OUR history enough, sharpened your brain(oops), and admitted these truths to be self evident and providential(now I'm almost starting up) you wouldn't get so furious. Problem is that you are looking out for yourself more than your fellow countrymen. Capitalism is a fine economical engine but when abused as in your immoral, albeit, illegal dealings, it (and you) are out of bounds.

In a recent private interview about the FBI investigations, Thorstenson Jr. himself expressed "concern that there may be something else out there." Unless that's a big white lie, Junior was concerned enough that he admits to having hired computer hackers to track the internet activity of both whistleblowers and federal investigators. That's hardly the act of someone who said he was feeling like his life has been made "a lot easier."

http://alaskareport.com/taufen30020.htm

And yet the SE seiners trust this guy to represent them, amazing. Makes me wonder if I am being hacked/tracked by this scoundrel!!

There are more than one "websters" on here and if we weren't invested into the fishery ourselves, do you really think that we would know so much and care so much as to spend the time posting on here? Clue up dude, we're on your side (that is, if you're on the moral, legal side).

The Thieve's Road, Long Hair Custer and the 7th "Pahuska" at Black Hills, Highway, "filled with gold from the grass roots down "The new illegal treaty violation, Fort Robinson" with Red Dog, Young-Man-Afraid-of His Horses, son of Old man Afraid, loosing the young warriors for Sitting Bull, Crazy Horse who had never taken a reservation or the white man's hand out.. The Cheyenne, Arapaho, and Sioux 20, 000

The death penality statute, highway man explained by Webster

Or was it Chief Pied Piper, Palin, Parnell, and their Coastal Zone Management Act, the Thieve's Road to a gold mine!

the highway-man, when he sets out on his business of plunder, expects that every man, whom he assaults, will deceive him if possible: the author of an unjust war, too, looks out for stratagem from the enemy. In these cases, deception has the nature of a covenant between the parties, and is, therefore, every way justifiable. Daniel Webster

Early in the Moon of making Fat, the Hunkapas had their annual Sun Dance.Three Stars Crook was coming from the south The one who limps from the west(Gibbon)

Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241Conspiracy Against RightsThis statute makes it unlawful for two or more persons to conspire...It further makes it unlawful for two or more persons to go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another with the intent to prevent or hinder his/her free exercise or enjoyment of any rights so secured.Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to ten years, or both; or for life, or may be sentenced to death.

For three days Sitting Bull danced, bled himself..."I give you these because they have no ears." Wakantanka the Great Spirit Chief soldiers falling like grasshoppers from the sky...Kill Eagle, a Blackfoot Sioux Chief stated "the movement was like a hurricane....like bees swarming out of the hive." The first massive charge caused the Long Hair Chief and his pony soldiers to become confused...Gall ". I killed all my enemys with a hatchet. "The smoke of the shooting and the dust shut out the hills" Pte-San-Waste-Win said, "and the solders fired many shots, but the Sioux shot straight and Long Hair lay dead among the rest. Crow King said that all the soldiers dismounted when surrounded...We crowded to our main camp and killed them all...Red Horse "these soldiers became foolish throwing away their guns"He did not wear his long hair as he used to wear it" Sitting bull said. "t was short, but it was the color of the grass when the frost comes...where the last stand was made, the Long Hair stood like a sheaf of corn with all the ears fallen around him." The Long Hair who made the Thieve's Road into the Black Hills was dead with all his men.

How’s about starting a discussion where people can talk State Statutes, treaties, General Custer, Sitting Bull, Red Cloud’s Locusts, Abe Lincoln, CFEC, Commissioners, the governor, Moses and all the other nonsense being quoted in these last few threads--Without being inhibited by the rest of us who want to read coherent sentences about the SE seine fishery. I can't imagine I'm in the minority here.

A chief called Lawyer, because he was a great talker, took the lead in this council, and sold nearly all the Nez Perces country. .. In this treaty Lawyer acted without authority from our band. He had no right to sell the Wallowa (winding water) country. That had always belonged to my father's own people, and the other bands had never disputed our right to it. No other Indians ever claimed Wallowa" Chief Joseph

I VOTE UNEDUCATED FISHERMEN OF ALASKA!

http://touchngo.com/sp/html/sp-6006.htm

"Although the lack of an active participationrequirement was the flaw on which we focused the most attention in Grunert I, we expressed concern with other aspects of the cooperative regime as well. For example, we expressed concernwith the reduced number of crew members necessary under the cooperative regime.35 We noted that the cooperative regulationmay interfere with the ability of the Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission (CFEC) to determine the optimum number of permits because the regulation destroys any relation between the number of permits issued per fishery and the ultimate number of participating vessels and units of gear.36 And we criticized the corporate-like nature of the cooperative regime: the cooperativeregulation . . . transforms the limited entry permit from what used to be a personal gear license into a mere ownership share in a cooperative organization.37 We directed the board to seek legislative approval: Before this regulatory scheme accomplishes such radical departurefrom the historical model of limited entry fisheries in Alaska and the spirit of the Limited Entry Act, . . . we conclude that the legislature must first authorize the board to approvecooperative salmon fisheries.38

D. The Chignik Cooperative Fishery Scheme Permitted by Former 5 AAC 15.358 Impermissibly Allocated Within a Single Fishery. We note that the boards allocation of the harvestable salmon between the cooperative and the open fishers was potentially arbitrary and capricious. Allowing some, but not all, Chignik salmon purse seine permit holders to operate different types and amounts of fishing equipment potentially raises questions of efficiency, arbitrary decision making, and equal protection."

Let us consider a more concrete example of just and unjust laws. An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding on itself. This is difference made legal. By the same token, a just law is a code that a majority compels a minority to follow and that it is willing to follow itself. This is sameness made legal.

Let me give another explanation. A law is unjust if it is inflicted on a minority that, as a result of being denied the right to vote, had no part in enacting or devising the law. Who can say that the legislature of Alabama which set up that state's segregation laws was democratically elected? Throughout Alabama all sorts of devious methods are used to prevent Negroes from becoming registered voters, and there are some counties in which, even though Negroes constitute a majority of the population, not a single Negro is registered. Can any law enacted under such circumstances be considered democratically structured?

Sometimes a law is just on its face and unjust in it's application. For instance, I have been arrested on a charge of parading without a permit. Now, there is nothing wrong in having an ordinance which requires a permit for a parade. But such an ordinance becomes unjust when it is used to maintain segregation and to deny citizens the First-Amendment privilege of peaceful assembly and protest.

I am just howling at the guy who about 12 posts earlier asks the question if Wes could set up a discussion board where we could talk about "...State Satutes...CFEC...Commissioners, the governor...and all the other nonsense being quoted..." just so that he is not "...inhibited..." by those elements.

GOOD GOD ALMIGHTY, we wouldn't want to follow regulation, Code, Statute, Federal or Constitutional Law now would we?

If you don't like the laws, change them, go somewhere else, or go straight to jail, do not pass go, do not collect 200k dollars.

YOU, are the UNBELIEVABLE one who is so full of himself that you don't recognize your responsibility to color inside the lines of our governing boundaries.

You are the minority.

Moon was full a week and a half ago. I thought you were a fisherman and we wouldn't have to teach you something as simple as that. You know, it's that big shiny thing in the sky at night, every 28 days it cycles, it helps pull the water bulge around the Earth that causes the tides. Do you know what a high tide and low tide is, or do you just get in line and take your turn when the mayor tells you to?

What a hoot! If these ninnie ( Bobby, Rob, Dave B, and their unwitting cronies) hadn't been trying to screw everyone with a program they could manipulate - like their ill-conceived HB286- there would have been a buyback 10 years ago. Good job making them obey the law NMFS.

2 - the SRA was not in good standing (in fact, it was revoked by the Division of Corporations) when it accepted the grant, a violation of state law

Face it bobbyt, you and your friends have problems following even the most basic laws

Sort of like selling part of the Alaska Fishermen's Building to the SE Seiners when the LLC had been revoked by the Alaska Division of Corporations when you were the Executive Directors of SE Seiners, you just can't help how greedy you are

As for your fishing cabin, it just happens to be in the right of way for the Kake Intertie, doesn't it, I hear you are going to make a tidy profit when they condemn for the right of way -- and didn't you lobby for it?

And even though you live in Shoreline and your kids go to Shoreline schools, apparently you have been claiming in-state status for your hunting license, using your Petersburg fishing cabin as your permanent address

Never stops with bobbyt, lying here and there to make a buck, just so greedy, when is it enough?

Someone has too much time on their handsKids all in private school- 4 residences in Alaska-280-300 days instate a year- did work for kake, proud of it- don't want a road thru my backyard-dec3 2003- resident ever since as well A's prior to 1990- building share bought by seas has done nothing but increase in value as well as location location location

Even all you loser Vic smith southland researchers know Calhoun Ave now

Did you know it sits across the street from the offices of the leg and gov- Govs address is 716 Calhoun ave- 2 houses over

If I'm not an Alaskan resident don't you think someone from WA state oughtta get me to stop paying out of state for my hunting and commercial fishing licenses

And maybe the federal gov should stop flying me to Seattle for meetings and start flying me to Juneau instead

Get a clue Vic

You used to live in AKI do

Report it to the state

I've heard this whine and rant for yearsDon't post it on wesleys Alaska fishing enquirer blog- if you suspect someone is taking a pfd- like I have been for years-then call the state and report it

But hear me now. Just because I'm a resident doesn't make the efforts and economic and social contributions of nonresidents less meaningful

When I was a nonresident commfisherguy I still paid more in fuel, fish taxes, mechanics, crewshares, moorage, shipyards, etc than any 10 average Alaskan residents

And I work for many whose families moved to SE 14,000 years ago but choose to winter in WA state

Does this make the Texan who moved to Wasilla 12 months ago and will leave the state forever with his NE t job any more Alaskan than a Johansen or a Demmert

I think not

Anyways, I'm amazed that someone would waste the time to KNOW so much- or want to- about me.

Did you know I own more than one permit too?

Better call Cfec quick and put me in the Carlson case- now that would have been enough reason to lie and try to claim nonresidency

bobbyt - I checked with ADFG and they told me you claimed that you were a resident for your hunting license so don't lie, but then again, you have problems with the truth, which is why NMFS tossed your application for the buyout.

Doesn't matter how much your real estate has appreciated, your LLC has been revoked and it was when you talked the SEAS board into buying a share with Zuanich and yourself, that has serious income tax consequences.

Maybe Gina should stop participating in those Innis Arden yard sales, you might have some more credibility if she didn't live here and volunteer with them.

But hey bobbyt, you kept on ranting about how you needed to get rid of those out of state fishermen when most of the SRA and SEAS board members are out of state fishermen, aren't they?

I've noticed that you haven't addressed other issues raised, which is typical when you don't have any good answers.

Can't say that you worked for Kake for free, since you didn't. In fact, I heard you tried to tell them that you worked for the City of Kake for free and then tried to threaten them with a lawsuit for your services, isn't that special?

Must really suck to have worked so hard for the Kake Cold Storage Plant only to see Sealaska scoop it out from underneath you, not only that, but it turns out that the Organized Village of Kake owns the land in perpetuity, too bad for Rob Zuanich.

Never heard you answer for how you hired Floyd Kookesh to lobby for you on behalf of the F/V Pamela Rae, Inc. for Equal Harvest Share in the Sitka Herring Fishery while he was the subsistence coordinator for Tlingit & Haida Central Council since you were mentioning in a long and round about way how you have worked for aboriginal people - tell me how that worked out in a conflict of interest?

Bobbyt, you lie to the state & feds, you lie to the commercial fishermen, you lie to the public, and you probably lie to your family all the time - how else would you get Gina to sign her name to a permit you planned on selling for a profit?

Football head is a good name for you, someday someone is going to dropkick it for a goal.

Bob,for crying out loud,get a grip man,you are your own greatest embarrassment. You protest too much and you're going off all over the place. And wasn't yesterday thanksgiving? Didn't you have anything better to do? Your obsession with me is really kind of creepy, so let me tell you something, I don't live under your bed. I haven't posted a word that I didn't sign my name to,ever,and I've never spent a second wondering if you liked me or not. And are you sure you want me to drag up the past? Because since being liked is such an issue with you I'd probably start with a piece about what a former ADF&G Commissioner thought about you,the one who called you "Junior". Why don't we just stick with the issues? A previous post mentioned the Federal Register, which is interesting because the National Rule for fisheries buybacks was published there eleven years ago. Of course you weren't interested in buy backs that didn't have quota for processors then, and when you did come around all you wanted to push was your "Rosemary's Baby" of buybacks - HB286. I've saved all your whining email excuses for why you couldn't use the federal plan. It's all on the record. You guys knew what the fixes were to mesh state and federal requirements, you just didn't want a plan you couldn't twiddle. But you sure know how to make a buck! Even with the federal plan--taxing all those honest one permit guys to pay for the permits you bought up cheap and put in your dog's and parakeet's names.For ten years all you've done on the buyback is pick the pockets of your Bobble Head followers and jerk them around as you triangulated how you and your cronies could make the most money out of it. But after all is said and done, know this: all I wanted was for you guys to follow the federal plan and kicking and screaming and ten years later, that's what you're doing.

But as for Mr Kookesh- we worked on one issue- Equal Harcest Share in Sitka SacRoe

Mr Kookesh is a great friend of mineHeck- when I hired him he was vice chair of the SE RAC too

EHS is good for the commfish guys and good for subsistence

As for Kake, I was the #1 salmon seller to Sealaska

Happy to see them in kake

And I never worked for OVK- just the city

Hardest I ever worked

Worked one year for free

Was supposed to get paid for the other year and a half

Got about 1/3 of what I was owedHappy with that

Yeah I lobbied hard for the road- now I like my trail better

Big deal- if you research a bit harder - and I know it's not you asking Vic- although my wife is not a dog sir- with your 'truth to power' buddies Taufen and enge it's hard to tell which which is which

Buyback?I don't need a buyback

Seiners and tge long term health of the fishery need a buyback

I was hired to implement a plan begun in 2001I was hired in 2003175 permits had changed hands before I bought one so I could get off the boat to be with my dying father

Remember him- Bob T Sr- the guy who wouldn't give you a loan. And the guy your dad harassed for decades

This is old history dude

And you are on the looooosing end

Sorry about that

Should have kept fishing- its getting better every year

Off to the slopes now to ski off the turkey

Got more snow here than any resort in the lower 48- where you have lived since the 80's

Bobbyt, you are as stupid as a football - hiring Floyd Kookesh as your lobbyist when he was employed by Tlingit & Haida Central Council as their subsistence coordinator is a direct conflict of interest, not only that, but Central Council was using a federal grant to pay Floyd.

Then again, not only are you dense, but ethics seem to escape your grasp.

So, you have essentially admitted that you were trying to rig Equal Harvest Share on behalf of your clients by running some of the money through your fake, shell corporation and paying Kookesh with their money, nice Bobby, real nice -- that seems like some kind APOC (or worse) violation.

Just Change AFU, to UFA and then you can read the charges as proven, I Vote Scab!

"All our work, our whole life is a matter of semantics, because words are the tools with which we work, the material out of which laws are made, out of which the Constitution was written. Everything depends on our understanding of them." MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The Territorial Legislature of Alaska provided for the licensing of commercial fishermen in territorial waters, imposing a $5 license fee on resident fishermen and a $50 fee on nonresidents. Alaska Laws, 1949, c. 66. The Alaska Fishermen's Union and its Secretary-Treasurer, on behalf of some 3,200 nonresident union members, brought this action in the District Court of the Territory to enjoin the Tax Commissioner from collecting the license fee from nonresidents. Plaintiffs contended that the Territorial Legislature was without power under the Organic Act to pass the statute, that the exaction complained of unconstitutionally burdens interstate commerce, and that it is an abridgment of the privileges and immunities of citizens of other States forbidden by Art. IV, 2 of the Constitution and by the Fourteenth Amendment. After trial, the District Court concluded that the differential between resident and nonresident fees rests on substantial differences bearing a fair and reasonable relation to the objects of the legislation, and upheld the statute. 91 F. Supp. 907. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed, one judge dissenting. 191 F.2d 123. We brought the case here for clarification of the limits on the power of the Territorial Legislature. 342 U.S. 865 .

"I, A. B., do solemnly swear or affirm, that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent on me as , according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the constitution, and laws of the United States. So help me God."

SEC. 9. And be it further enacted, That the district courts shall have, exclusively of the courts of the several States, cognizance of all crimes and offences that shall be cognizable under the authority of the United States, committed within their respective districts, or upon the high seas; where no other punishment than whipping, not exceeding thirty stripes, a fine not exceeding one hundred dollars, or a term of imprisonment not exceeding six months, is to be inflicted; and shall also have exclusive original cognizance of all civil causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, including all seizures under laws of impost, navigation or trade of the United States, where the seizures are made, on waters which are navigable from the sea by vessels of ten or more tons burthen, within their respective districts as well as upon the high seas; saving to suitors, in all cases, the right of a common law remedy, where the common law is competent to give it; and shall also have exclusive original cognizance of all seizures on land, or other waters than as aforesaid, made, and of all suits for penalties and forfeitures incurred, under the laws of the United States. And shall also have cognizance, concurrent with the courts of the several States, or the circuit courts, as the case may be, of all causes where an alien sues for a tort only in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States. And shall also have cognizance, concurrent as last mentioned, of all suits at common law where the United States sue, and the matter in dispute amounts, exclusive of costs, to the sum or value of one hundred dollars. And shall also have jurisdiction exclusively of the courts of the several States, of all suits against consuls or vice-consuls, except for offences above the description aforesaid. And the trial of issues in fact, in the district courts, in all causes except civil causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, shall be by jury.

"I was living peacefully there under the shade of the trees, doing just what General Crook had told me I must do...I want to know who it was who order me to be arrested. I was praying to the light and darkness, to God and the sun...There are very few of us left...Geronimo.

"falling from the sky's like grasshoppers."

Chief Comes in Sight.

Stevens and NASA administrator Sean O'Keefe, were on their way to a private fishing lodge...

Wow! trying to read this thread is a dizzying experience, to say the least. Most of it is in some sort of code or Alaskan Esperanto. I catch the 'vibes' (I know instinctively when people hate one another) but for my life I don't get the gist, other than the Federals pulled some plug.

Just a bunch of blood sucking maggets trying to make money off of other people,nothing new,they've been doing it their whole life. Leaches and maggets dont deserve money,climb back in your holes Z & B.

What some people won''t stoop to for a legacy. Bobby, it is no wonder you are continually bothered by Groundswell's efforts to bring back over $1.5 billion a year, and get a lot of that back on the fish tickets. You believe in a kleptocracy, with yourself as a main player, so short is your self-respect that you still know no other path. Until and unless you educate yourself on Abusive Transfer Pricing, and use what little sway you have to put an end to the foreign-controlled and otherwise corrupt fishing industry, you will bear the legacy of failure well into the future. Your role in history will be as an example of a wasted life, an enemy to all those crewmen and skippers in many fisheries suffered because your personal parochial psychopathic Petersburg plans don't include caring a scintilla for the rest of the world. Your ego-centric self promotions, references to visiting Ted, etc. merely reflect a lost soul. The answers you need are not to be found in your comfort zone. Try volunteering your time to serve bread and beans and water in starvation zones in Africa for a few years, or something more human. No one is seeing you from the clouds, and certainly no one is giving you any good score for the moneys your deadly sins accumulate, and like all humans, you will perish without ever taking so much as a thread with you. Sacrificing your self-respect and ethics for decades was a serious price to pay for a little skiing or hobnobbing with criminally minded politicians. Look around this nation, and you'll have good measure for your low worth and lack of contribution to a civil and progressive society. Things are changing, and the disenfranchised are not going to take it any longer from your type. NMFS should have clamped down on your buyback shenanigans long ago - and make no mistake, they are seeing every piece of nonsense you print, along with far more. RIP.

You're right, the comments on this thing are mostly a bunch of drivel and they read like a bad trip. As a public service, I'll paraphrase the whole thing and save you an hour of pain and suffering:

It seems the comments fall into one of three categories:

1. The Copy & Paste Fisherman: This guy likes to quote state statutes, Abe Lincoln, and a pile of other historical characters that are somehow meant to discredit the program or some of the people involved. Problem is that most of the characters quoted never lived to see a power block. Really tough for the average guy to make any sense of this whatsoever, other than that somebody has way to much time on their hands and can't put together their own argument about the buyback. It's questionable whether those in this category have the mental horsepower to draw a circle, let alone figure out how to close up.

2. The Slanderer/Political Enemy: This guy loves to rip on proponents of the plan, and just can't resist the urge to give well-known figures a solid kick in the nuts in a public forum. You'll know this guy by his words: 'leaches, maggots, criminally minded politicians, RIP' etc'. This guy might also suggest criminal behavior and worse. There is clearly some longstanding bad blood, maybe some of it is earned, who knows. For whatever reason, they don't like to argue the program, but they like to talk about the people. It's pretty clear that very few of the guys that fall into this category are actual stakeholders in S01A.

3. The Fisherman: The final category is a rare bird, these are the people who actually have a stake in this fishery and want to talk about it. Some for, some against, but at least they have some skin in the game and have been following this for a long time. These are the few nuggets of good information in the comments.

Fortunately, there are 379 votes in this project, and the result will be decided by people that actually have some skin in the game.

Disclosure: Poster earned original SE Seine permit, sold it in first buyback, bought back in, now fishing. Ex-SEAS Director but not member now for specific reasons,ex-PSVOA Director and long-time member.

If the recent buyback had not been thrown out by NMFS, it would have been voted down by permit holders. Many no votes would have been cast because of . . . ethical lapses . . . insider trading . . . conflicts of interest . . . call it what you will.

Paid seiner employees Bob Thorstenson Jr. and Rob Zuanich, with some SRA involvement, designed and promoted the program. They were also successful bidders, two permits each, and collectively would have received almost a million dollars, or 8% of the purchase funds, for their permits. They were the only bidders with two permits on the list. Ethical behavior? You decide.

If that buyback had gone through, here is one scenario. You catch a million pounds of pink salmon @ $.50/lb. Out of your 3% assessment, $1,200 goes toward servicing debt resulting from retiring the four Thorstenson/Zuanich permits. Meanwhile, your dues are paying their salary/consulting fees.

New bid packets are out, and the conflict of interest continues. Many permit holders will vote no if they again see Thorstenson/Zuanich permits on the successful bidder list. Bob & Rob want the buyback to pass for the health of the fishery. They also want to profit by selling permits in the buyback. They could remove their permits from bidding to improve chances of buyback election success, but that would cost them.

Ah, but the logic behind the buyback was the low value of the permits and too many were being fished, causing low prices. If permits are being sold at a value six figures higher than the valuation estimated by CFEC, then the underlying rationale for the optimum number and the low price for permits fails.

Have to go back not to the state management plan or forecast, but the fiction created by Zuanich, Thorstensen, McCabe, and Ben Stevens to understand why the excessive prices matter.

And so much for that blind auction when SRA, Alaska Seiners, Silver Bay owners, and PSVOA are getting the highest prices for their extra permits.

No wonder they wanted state legislation to permit stack and extend the buyback to all of Alaska, what a scam but entirely legal. Wanna bet they claim its a success and try to extend to the rest of Alaska?

Can anyone explain why we "need" a buyback anyway.Why do you need to spend millions of dollars on something that has nothing to do with the preservation,enhancement or economic value of wild salmon? How does buying back a bunch of permits that are essentially not being used anyway help those young guy's who may want to get into the fishery 5 or 10 years from now ? We need jobs and industry that supports that ,not the other way around. Maybe these guy's are proponents of the fish farms. Worked out great for the Canadian fisherman.

When this all started I strongly suppo\rted buy back and was on the Revitalization board. Things changed faster than we could move. When circumstances changed, I reconsidered . There are at least three important points to consider. Most important; will buyback remove enough effort to make the 3% assessment a good investment.?Will it actually remove any effort at all? Will buyback limit the size of the fleet more than market forces already have. That depends on how good fishing is. Given the cost of entering and competing in the SE seine fishery, even aside from the cost of a permit, I question whether buyback will have any effect on the size of the fleet. Fishing being too profitable has never been one of my worries. I would trade the possiblity of having to share 2011 like seasons with a few more boats if such seasons should become the norm, for the assurance that I wouldn’t have to pay 3% of my gross needlessly to eliminate permits that would never fish again anyway if such seasons aren’t common . That’s me; others might have the oposite opinion. That’s OK but this discussion never happened and has always been discouraged by leadership. . Secondly, the NOAA rules validate a buyback program if 50% plus one of all permit holders vote in favor of it. Holders of permits who have never fished them and who have never had the intention of fishing them get the same vote as the active permit holders who will r have to pay the three % if buyback goes fgoward. Thirdly, or a corrallary to point 2; whether or not insider trading was involved, a large number if not a majority of the permits to be bought back seem to have been held only for speculation.

Money,money,money,its all about money.No one seems to ever mention whats in store for the up and coming young fishermen.Greed has taken over this industry. One thing that my father taught me and his father taught him was,never get to greedy. Bad things happen when you get greedy!!!!! The main thing for me is I LOVE WHAT I DO, I love to be out on the ocean fishing. your average guy wanting to get in this fishery wont be able to afford it,SHAME ON YOU GREEDY assholes.

When SEAS hired me in 2003 you were on the SRA board as well as the SEAS board. For the next 5 years.

No one ever held a gun to your head to vote. Leadership? You were as much leadership as anyone.

You were against the buyback in 2003 when you hired me, Jim Z.

Pinks were 5 cents a pound for 30 months after you decided you didn't like the buyback.

When we began the buyback, with you, Mr. Zuanich, on the board of SEAS, the pink price was 15 cents. It didn't fall until the next year, 2002. Then it didn't go up again until years after you voted nonsupport.

You made it abundantly clear and although you were the minority opinion-- of one-- no one dismissed discussion.

As for the new guy, this is a new guy move. We don't need a buyback for us old farts-- I"ve fished commercially 35 seasons. If I haven't 'found my way' by now I guess I'm not ever going to.

The buyback is a new guy thing. It's for the next generation so they don't have to ask why they cannot make a living fishing with the 419 permits we began with.

After phase 1 we are down to 379 permits. This last phase would have brought us down to 311, with 10 million dollars in the bank to buy more if needed.

Anyways, glad to see you haven't changed your mind Jim, but you should try to keep the facts straight. You were against this program at the lowest prices in the history of seining and now you are against the program at the highest prices.

You were against the program when there were 207 boats fishing.

Now you are against the program, saying it will not take boats out of the fishery, when there are 269 boats fishing.

You said back then, when our target was 225 fishing, that no new boats would come into the fishery.

Well, just an FYI. 62 boats came in over the 8 or 9 years you said that no new boats would come in.

62.

That's a 30% increase.

30%

Does 3% justify 30%

Do the math, Jim

BTW

Thanks for the name.

I won't respond to those anon but you are a big man to put down your name. I appreciate that.

And while we may disagree on this issue, I'm sure that 99% of all the other SEAS issues we are in total sync.

and while i resent the inference that I somehow was 'insider trading' or acting 'unethically' or whatever you said jim k., i want to apologize for my language. it was inappropriate

as for speculators, as long as they sell for an average price, what's the big deal. rather that the original permit holder had held on these 10 years but there have been more than a few folks who thought this may never happen. they wanted the money now.

some folks even sold this spring for 130-140 or so and just took it as retirement. i can't blame them for wanting the sure thing. but if someone bought it at 130-140 and wants to sell it at 180-190, what's the big deal. who cares if the card is melted down forever.

and anon... whacked forever. how does having less permits incentivize their use more than having 119 sitting around like we do now.

If we have 379 permits available and we are allowed to get the fishery down to 260 permits why should the permits be worth anymore than $193,277.31 ? Thats 119 permits divided by $23,000,000.00 (unknown administration fees) and don't allow anyone on the sra board to sell thier or thier wifes permit. This fishery's not like it was in 1974 when limited entry was enacted!The advancement of this fishery can't handle this many potential permits operating.

The first major issue raised by this appeal concerns the standing of Woods, Lynch and Johns to seek declaratory and injunctive relief against the CFEC. *fn2 Where challenges to administrative practices are involved, this court has adopted a liberal posture towards standing, favoring accessibility to the courts. Wickersham v. CFEC, 680 P.2d 1135, 1139 (Alaska 1984). At the same time, this court has reaffirmed the necessity that a "party asserting standing a sufficient 'personal stake' in the outcome of the controversy to ensure the requisite adversity." Hoblit v. Commissioner of Natural Resources, 678 P.2d 1337, 1340 (Alaska 1984). Even where, as here, constitutional infirmities are alleged to undermine the regulations " court will not reach questions unless the litigant raising them has demonstrated that he has been injured in fact by the allegedly illegal measures." Id. at 1340 n.3; see Younker v. CFEC, 598 P.2d 917, 920-21 (Alaska 1979).

Robert Zuanich and bobbi t (what an idiotic name) need to be fired ASAP. I wonder what the Washington Bar Association would have to say about Mr. Zuanich's ethical lapses? Our organizations are tainted by association with these sleazy, self serving characters.

Where’s the love, man? At least Bob T. signs his profanities, and sometimes even apologizes. Being told to “go f--- myself” seemed like a love-tap compared to the character assassinations flying in every direction.

Why the anonymity? Has caller ID has forced you obscene phone callers to find another outlet? You are afraid the “scoundrel” will hack your email address? (Nov. 20) Really? Am I missing something? Clue me in before I get my kneecaps broken.

Some folks had different ideas about what the opportunity to fish is worth to them. That is very different than asking what the market price is. If people were willing to sell at market they would do it. If you want to buy a large amount of anything, the price will go up.

Permit holders see the chance to sell for more than market price in the buyback, and have kept their permits off the market. This has reduced the supply and artificially inflated the market price of the permits. Basic economics folks - supply and demand.

"I swear, under penalty of perjury, that the information provided by me on both sides of this form and in all supporting documents is true and completely describes the terms and conditions of this transfer; that this transfer is not requested as part of, nor in anticipation of, any retained right of repossession or foreclosure, lease, pledge, mortgage, agreement requiring a subsequent transfer, or other encumbrance involving this permit, except as part of a transfer financed in accordance with current law; that I am not prohibited by law or court order from being a party to this transfer. I understand that making a false claim on this form or submitting false documentation in support of this transfer request is a crime under AS 11.56.210 which is punishable by up to one year in prison and/or $5,000 fine, and may subject me to administrative fines, suspension of fishing privileges and revocation of any entry permits I may hold."

"...If the proposed transferee, other than the commission, can demonstrate the present ability to participate actively in the fishery and the transfer does not violate any provision of this chapter or regulations adopted under this chapter, and if a certificate for the permit under AS 16.10.333 (b)(1) - (2), 16.10.338, or AS 44.81.231 (a) is not in effect, the commission shall approve the transfer and reissue the entry permit to the transferee provided that neither party is prohibited by law from participating in the transfer."

The Statute of Gloucester 1278 took the investigations of 1274 a step further. Itinerant justices were appointed to investigate quo warranto (by what warrant/right) nobles claimed local powers and privileges. Any privilege for which a royal grant could not be proved was recovered by the crown.

Fishin for Tuition>?<

Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 39 governs the award of costs on appeal. Under the rule, how well or how poorly a party does on appeal determines whether that party may collect any money from its opponent to cover the costs of the appeal.14 It implements “the principle ․ that all cost items expended in the prosecution of the proceeding should be borne by the unsuccessful party.” 15 This ancient principle was set out in the Statute of Gloucester in 1275.16 It has been modified only in the details since its establishment. Neither the principle, nor our rule, use “costs” to mean what something actually cost. “Costs” means the certain listed expenditures a party has incurred for which it may seek reimbursement from the opposing party.17 Exxon is not entitled to seek reimbursement under Rule 39 of the fortune it undoubtedly spent on attorneys' fees.18 Allowable costs under Rule 39, for preparation and transmission of the record, for the reporter's transcript, and for filing a notice of appeal ($455), are relatively small.19 But the one remaining element of allowable costs, “premiums paid for a supersedeas bond or other bond to preserve rights pending appeal,” can be, and was in this case, huge.

I'll vote for it if the BT and Rob type guys have bids on there, but only if they are at a fair price (i.e. below the average).

Purchase price, plus a fair profit plus some interest. We do want their permits out, but they shouldn't be making more money than anybody else on the list, considering the perceived conflict of interest.

AT U of Oxford"Fisheries Buybacks" by Elizabeth Curtis and Dale Squires, that include Chapters 1,2 and 16 that "ARE" the works of the U.S. Government and not subject to Copyright law of the United States...

Of course two days ago, the Confused SE Fisherman, in the Alaska Supreme Court???

The Limited Entry Act provides that “final administrative determinationsby the [CFEC] are subject to judicial review as provided in AS 44.62.560 - 44.62.570.”15Alaska Statute 44.62.560 and AS 44.62.570 are provisions of the AdministrativeProcedure Act governing judicial appeals from administrative adjudications. AlaskaStatute 44.62.570 provides:Inquiry in an appeal extends to the following questions: (1) whether the agency has proceeded without, or in excess of jurisdiction; (2) whether there was a fair hearing; and (3) whether there was a prejudicial abuse of discretion. Abuse of discretion is established if the agency has not proceeded in the manner required by law, the order or decision is not supported by the findings, or the findings are not supported by the evidence.AS 16.43.120.-9- 662715In administrative appeals, we directly review the agency action in question.16 We review the commission’s factual findings under the substantial evidence standard.17 Substantial evidence is “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.”18 We apply a deferential “reasonable basis” standard of review to an agency’s interpretation of its own regulations.19

Yes, but where will the new entrants come from? More specifically, where will the boats come from?

Repeal of the 58 ft. limit? Hopefully not. New construction, at 3M a pop?

From other areas? Yes, there is a trickle factor, but look at 2011 with a big prediction for SE and only 269 total permits used. With weaker production expected, the number of permits fished is likely to decrease in the near future.

Increased permit use is unlikely, so it is not a good reason for buyback, at least for the foreseeable future. The long-term potential is there.

If the bidder list is clean next time the vote will deserve a hard look.

Yes, but thats a 1 year forecast, i am more concerned about the long term. The boat market is tight now, but there are plenty of boats that used to seine that are still in SE.

Looking at the number of "new" boats in the last few years, i think it's pretty clear there will be more coming. Remember that 10 years ago there were 345 boats fishing. Most of those boats are still around, they just found other things to do. At these prices, it wouldn't take much to get them seining instead of tendering, etc. Not to mention the Canadian boats, squid boats, etc.

Maybe the timing isn't perfect, but it's still a good idea if we can get a 'clean' list at a fair price.

If a person ever read the boat market report, from the Magnum Steven's Act, the requirement to retire, in the current legal review, along with a quite a few other questions of exemption for from this group, who's most likely never herd of the "Full Faith and Credit Clause" from the Maritime Law, of that Judiciary Act of 1789.

The market will get tighter, after a few get to explain how 40 S.E. Seine Permits disapeared, along withiout a Certificate of Documentation, of questionable value.One should move to Alaska, where the Crab, and Pollack Fleets, had those documentations clarified, with the Magnusen Stevens Act.

No big deal they build boats everyday, just like boobyt says, catching a million or two lbs, can cover the cost of that no-inflated based vessel value unchanged by inflation since 1975.

50 cent pinks, are 50 cent pinks, really in 50 states of the Union, where 4th grade reading class was never this confused!

Look at all the new boats, new permits, and new politicians too.

The make em everyday, by the thousands, using the Limited Entry Act between the ears at SEAS.

Those missing 40 S01A cards?

"a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that the should declare the causes which impel them to their seperation..."

Who was that former PSVOA President, still uneducated about vessel documentation "seperation"

The permits' history won't make any difference to the number of fish I catch in the future. It's the future of the permit that matters, will the permit re-enter the fishery or not?

I look at the trends, the prices, the competition in the processors, and the historical number of permits......yes, I think that many will want to re-enter, so yes I will vote for it if it looks reasonable.

And even Peter the Great was arrested, those confusing priviliges at St. Petersburg, unchanged for centuries, Blackstone's Commontaries, for those who attended Willamette

"In respect to civil suits,all the foreign jurists agree, that neither an embassador, nor any of his train or comites, can be prosecuted for any debt or contract in the courts of that kingdom wherein he is sent to reside. Yet sir Edward Coke maintains, that, if an embassador makes a contract which is good jure gentium, he shall answer for it here. And the truth is, we find no traces in our lawbooks of allowing any privilege to embassadors or their domestics, even in civil suits, previous to the reign of queen Anne; when an embassador from Peter the great, czar of Muscovy, was actually arrested and taken out of his coach in London, in 1708, for debts which he had there contracted. This the czar resented very highly, and demanded (we are told) that the officers who made the arrest should be punished with death. But the queen (to the amazement of that despotic court) directed her minister to inform him, "that the law of England had not yet protected embassadors from the payment of their lawful debts; that therefore the arrest was no offence by the laws; and that she could inflict no punishment upon any, the meanest, of her subjects, unless warranted by the law of the land." To satisfy however the clamours of the foreign ministers (who made it a common cause) as well as to appease the wrath of Peter, a new statute was enacted by parliament, reciting the arrest which had been made, "in contempt of the protection granted by her majesty, contrary to the law of nations, and in prejudice of the rights and privileges, which embassadors and other public ministers have at all times been thereby possessed of, and ought to be kept sacred and inviolable:" wherefore it enacts, that for the future all process whereby the person of any embassador, or of his domestic or domestic servant, may be arrested, or his goods distreined or seised, shall be utterly null and void; and the persons prosecuting, soliciting, or executing such process shall be deemed violaters of the law of nations, and disturbers of the public repose; and shall suffer such penalties and corporal punishment as the lord chancellor and the two chief justices, or any two of them, shall think fit. But it is expressly provided, that no trader, within the description of the bankrupt laws, who shall be in the service of any embassador, shall be privileged or protected by this act; nor shall any one be punished for arresting an embassador's servant, unless his name be registred with the secretary of state, and by him transmitted to the sheriffs of London and Middlesex. Exceptions, that are strictly conformable to the rights of embassadors, as observed in the most civilized countries. And, in consequence of this statute, thus enforcing the law of nations, these privileges are now usually allowed in the courts of common law..."